-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 26 October 2002 3:55 am, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 02:02:24AM +0100, Alan Chandler wrote:
> > Just a brick to throw in the pond
> >
> > If you are creating a system for newbies - you will presumably still need
> > a root account.
> >
> > What newbie will understand the name "root".
>
> What's to be understood? It's the proper name for the thing. Calling
> it 'admin' glosses over the details that someone administering their own
> machine, newbie or not, NEEDS to be educated about in order to use their
> computer safely.
- From a technicians point of view you are exactly correct - but the question I
am asking (and if we want to create desktops for the masses we must at least
ask the question) does it have to be. Isn't something like administrator a
much more logical name for someone not in the know.
Formally root is uid=0 gid=0 - but does the name "root" stem from anything
more than the entry in /etc/passwd? Could it be changed. Would things still
work of it was?
Ultimately - after some discussion - a concensus might be that you are correct
and it should not be changed - but I think we at least have to ask ourselves
are these sacred cows really that sacred.
- --
Alan Chandler
alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9upqDuFHxcV2FFoIRAvHTAKCh7rozHHn6HpSQTw9wY1yrC7rBWgCdGxns
LWgaRB00VifpSVSPcfb1dMw=
=CSF5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----